scholarly journals Need Assessment, Planning & Management for Health Resources; A case of Makkah Trauma Center level 1 and Makkah EMS & DMC

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed Shammah
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Health Resources ◽  
Need Assessment ◽  
Level 1

scholarly journals Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Absolute Benefit ◽  
Predicted Probability ◽  
Prehospital Triage ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center ◽  
Level 2

Abstract Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92–0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.

scholarly journals Operative Treatment of Severe Cervical Spine Injuries Sustained in Youth Sports: Experience from a Pediatric Level 1 Trauma Center over a 16-Year Period

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967121S0008
Author(s):  
Bram P Verhofste ◽  
Daniel J Hedequist ◽  
Craig M Birch ◽  
Emily S Rademacher ◽  
Michael P Glotzbecker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Youth Sports ◽  
Axial Loading ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Level 1

Background: Sports-related cervical spine injuries (CSI) are devastating traumas with the potential for permanent disability. There is a paucity of literature on operative CSI sustained in youth athletes. Hypothesis/Purpose: The aims of this study aims were to review injury characteristics, surgical treatment, and outcomes of severe pediatric CSI encountered in youth sports. Methods: We reviewed children less than 18 years old with operative sports-related CSI at a pediatric Level 1 pediatric trauma center between 2004−2019. All cases underwent modern cervical spine instrumentation and fusion. SCI were stratified according to the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (ASIA). Clinical, radiographic, and surgical characteristics were compared between groups of patients with and without spinal cord injury (SCI). Results: Three thousand two hundred and thirty-one children (mean, 11.3y±4.6y) were evaluated for CSI at our institution during the 16-year period. The majority of traumas resulted from sports/recreational activities and were seen in 1365 cases (42.3%). Of these, 171/1365 patients (12.5%) were admitted and 29/1365 patients (2.1%) required surgical intervention (mean age, 14.5y±2.88y; range, 6.4y–17.8y). Sports included: eight football (28%), seven wrestling (24%), five gymnastics (17%), four diving (14%), two trampoline (7%), one hockey (3%), one snowboarding (3%), and one biking injury (3%). Mechanisms were 19 hyperflexion (65%), eight axial loading (28%), and two hyperextension injuries (7%). The majority of operative CSI were fractures (79%) and/or subaxial defects (72%). Seven patients (30%) sustained SCI and three patients (10%) spinal cord contusion or myelomalacia without neurologic deficits. The risk of SCI increased with age (15.8y vs. 14.4y; p=0.03) and axial loading mechanism (71% vs. 14%; p=0.003). Postoperatively, two SCI patients (29%) improved 1 ASIA Grade and one (14%) improved 2 ASIA Grades. Increased complications developed in SCI than patients without SCI (mean, 2.0 vs 0.1 complications; p=0.02). Clinical and radiographic fusion occurred in 24/26 patients (92%) with adequate follow-up (median, 32 months). Ten patients returned to their previous activity and nine to sports with a lower level of activity. Conclusion: The overall incidence of sports-related operative CSI is low. Age- and gender discrepancies exist, with male adolescent athletes most commonly requiring surgery. Hyperflexion injuries had a good prognosis; however, older males with axial loading CSI sustained in contact sports were at greatest risk of SCI, complications, and permanent disability. [Figure: see text][Table: see text][Table: see text]

Trauma Center Outcomes After Transition From Level 2 to Level 1: A National Trauma Data Bank Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 264 ◽  
pp. 499-509
Author(s):  
Sung Huang Laurent Tsai ◽  
Greg Michael Osgood ◽  
Joseph K. Canner ◽  
Amber Mehmood ◽  
Oluwafemi Owodunni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Data Bank ◽  
National Trauma ◽  
National Trauma Data Bank ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 2

Poster 16 Utilization review from a level 1 trauma center to improve scene triage

1992 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Edward T. Rupert ◽  
J. Duncan Harviel ◽  
Grace S. Rozycki ◽  
Howard R. Champion
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Utilization Review ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Changing Characteristics of Facial Fractures Treated at a Regional, Level 1 Trauma Center, From 2005 to 2010

2012 ◽  
Vol 68 (5) ◽  
pp. 461-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S. Roden ◽  
Winnie Tong ◽  
Matthew Surrusco ◽  
William W. Shockley ◽  
John A. Van Aalst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Facial Fractures ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

scholarly journals Is it a matter of time? The effect of transfer time on femur fracture outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000701
Author(s):  
Leah E Larson ◽  
Melissa L Harry ◽  
Paul K Kosmatka ◽  
Kristin P Colling
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Femur Fracture ◽  
Fracture Repair ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Transfer Time ◽  
Femur Fractures ◽  
Initial Hospital ◽  
Level 1

BackgroundTrauma systems in rural areas often require longdistance transfers for definitive care. Delays in care, such as delayed femurfracture repair have been reported to be associated with poorer outcomes, butlittle is known about how transfer time affects time to repair or outcomesafter femur fractures.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of all trauma patients transferred to our level 1 rural trauma center between May 1, 2016-April 30, 2019. Patient demographics and outcomes were abstracted from chart and trauma registry review. All patients with femur fractures were identified. Transfer time was defined as the time from admission at the initial hospital to admission at the trauma center, and time to repair was defined as time from admission to the trauma center until operative start time. Our outcome variables were mortality, in-hospital complications, and hospital length of stay (LOS).ResultsOver the study period1,887 patients were transferred to our level 1 trauma center and 398 had afemur fracture. Compared to the entire transfer cohort, femur fracture patientswere older (71 versus 57 years), and more likely to be female (62% versus 43%).The majority (74%) of patients underwent fracture repair within 24hours. Delay in fracture fixation >24 hours wasassociated with increased length of stay (5 days versus 4 days; p<0.001),higher complication rates (23% versus 12%; p=0.01), and decreased dischargehome (19% vs. 32%, pp=0.02), but was not associated with mortality (6% versus5%; p=0.75). Transfer time and time at the initial hospital were not associatedwith mortality, complication rate, or time to femur fixation.DiscussionFixation delay greater than 24 hours associated with increased likelihood of in-hospital complications, longer length of stay, and decreased likelihood of dischargehome. Transfer time not related to patient outcomes or time to femur fixation.Level of evidenceLevel III; therapeutic/care management.

scholarly journals Does emergency medicine length of stay predict trauma outcomes at a Level 1 Trauma Center?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Powers Kinney ◽  
Kamal Gursahani ◽  
Eric Armbrecht ◽  
Preeti Dalawari
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Hospital Capacity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document